Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the constraint on applicant_id, which is more about input semantics than behavioral disclosure. It does not describe side effects, error behavior, or what happens with invalid IDs. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences: the first states the action, the second delivers the key usage constraint. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. No fluff or repetition of schema details, though it could have added sibling differentiation without much cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it. The main gap is the lack of explicit distinction from the Classic variant; an agent might choose the wrong tool without guidance. Also, the output format (resume content) is not mentioned, but that is typically self-evident for a 'get resume' tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in detail (e.g., project_id must be exact, applicant_id must be the profile ID from a listing). The tool description adds a redundant warning about not using names/URLs, but it does not provide new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Retrieve a Recruiter applicant resume.' The verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'Recruiter applicant resume' are specific, and the 'Recruiter' prefix distinguishes it from the sibling linkedin_classic_get_applicant_resume. The additional constraint on applicant_id clarifies what not to pass, further sharpening purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: resolve exact project_id and applicant_id first, and explicitly warns against using candidate name or LinkedIn URL. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus the alternative linkedin_classic_get_applicant_resume, nor does it state that this is for Recruiter projects only. The guidance is useful but incomplete for routing between siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.